So many possible angles on this. What is critical? Trump vs North Korea? Turnbull vs his own political party (even himself)? Or, have you thought about restorative justice, now that’s a critical issue? Or, are you responding to climate change with solid critical thinking (dividing the truth, reasoning)?

But from a contemplative point of view, critical, or critical thinking (or processing), is deductive vs inductive thinking (or processing). Inductive reasoning involves inquiry, exploration, trial and error. Whereas deductive reasoning involves establishing a truth and supporting it. Inductive reasoning has helped us to grow and explore in every field of learning, whereas deductive learning has kept us corralled in a particular moment of learning.

Inductive learning helps us to think and respond critically to ideas, processes, facts, learning, discovery, emotions, and feelings. In theology and politics (and other fields of learning too) deductive learning is usually associated with closed thinking, even fundamentalism(s). Whereas inductive learning is exponential, it keeps on keeping on, because it recognises our potential to never fully know, but to be always engaged with learning new aspects of a truth or an experience. Inductive learning is not about black or white, right or wrong, who’s in or who’s out, it is about how do we move forward with each revelation, and how do I integrate that learning and contribute to it too? Deductive learning has its place, but its more about what we agree to be set truths and paths to learning, and of which there are few.

I’m for trial and error, its more forgiving, more fun, and opens up a myriad of possibilities every time. but it really depends on how you look at life, are you open to new ideas and paths at each turn, or do you yearn for set ideas and paths? The great thinkers of each generation have been inductive thinkers and teachers.